Ash v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ash v. Jones

281 A.D.2d 930, 722 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2861

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 930 (Ash v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ash v. Jones, 281 A.D.2d 930, 722 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied his cross petition seeking custody of his child, who has been in the custody of petitioner, her maternal grandmother. Family Court made a prior determination that extraordinary circumstances exist (see, Matter of Michael G. B. v Angela L. B., 219 AD2d 289, 292), and that determination was not challenged by respondent. Consequently, a change in custody is warranted only if it is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Ammann v Ammann, 209 AD2d 1032, 1033), and the record supports the court’s determination that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in petitioner’s custody. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court did not improperly delegate its authority to determine the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Hennelly v Viger, 198 AD2d 224, 225). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Willis, J.H.O., J. — Custody.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied his cross petition seeking custody of his child, who has been in the custody of petitioner, her maternal grandmother. Family Court made a prior determination that extraordinary circumstances exist (see, Matter of Michael G. B. v Angela L. B., 219 AD2d 289, 292), and that determination was not challenged by respondent. Consequently, a change in custody is warranted only if it is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Ammann v Ammann, 209 AD2d 1032, 1033), and the record supports the court’s determination that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in petitioner’s custody. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court did not improperly delegate its authority to determine the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Hennelly v Viger, 198 AD2d 224, 225). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Willis, J.H.O., J. — Custody.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 930, 722 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-jones-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack